To get to the truth of what happened to the Globe-Times of
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, it was necessary to read and analyze
statistical data from several sources and to spend considerable time
reading the newspaper during its ten-year decline prior to its death on
November 4, t991- But the most important resource for this study were
the people of Bethlehem and the Globe-Times.

Most of the interviews with employees lasted more than an hour, with
some running several hours over a three-year period. The primary
research for this study began shortly after the newspaper announced on
April 5, 1988 that it was restructuring" its operation. Most of the
research and 250 interviews were conducted between June 20, [988 and
September 30, 1992; several interviews, especially of certain key
employees and former employees, took place after that time. Thus, the
author was analyzing a newspaper and talking to many of its staff during
its death struggle.

Considerable assistance, beyond interviews, was provided by Ann
Marie Gonsalves and Mary Wagner; former Globe-Times reporters; Robert K
Noctor, former Globe-Times general manager; David E. McCollum, former
Globe-Times chief operating officer; freelance writer Joan Campion, a
former Globe-Times columnist; former copy editor Anita Katz; and Paul
Wirth, former reporter for the Morning Call. John N. Rippey, head of the
journalism program at the Pennsylvania State University, and two
anonymous reviewers provided a number of useful suggestions for the
improvement of the manuscript.

Most persons contacted were willing to talk about their perceptions
of the Management, direction and policies of the Globe-Times and to give
specific examples to back up their beliefs. Several employees of the
Globe-Times or those who were intimately familiar with certain
situations at the Globe-Times spoke "off the record." Even after the
Globe-Times folded, some of the former employees were willing to speak
only off the record, afraid of what the Abarta Corporation might do to
them. Although anonymous comments and charges may not always reflect the
most accurate or reliable information and may at times mask personal
agenda, in some cases they are useful. A former employee spoke under the
condition that his name not be used because 'I don't know what they
could do to me; they have more power than I have." Still another former
employee agreed to speak only off the record because he was worried that
they'd cut off my pension." The refusal of these employees to be
identified does not blunt the intensity or the accuracy of their
comments. Every effort was made to verify the facts and opinions of
those employees who wished to remain anonymous. Their courage in
talking, even off the record, to a person they barely knew but believed
would not violate their trust Is much appreciated. Interestingly, some
who had refused to be interviewed suddenly became very chatty and went
on the record after the death of the Globe-Times.

A few who left the company after the purge, and were not bound by
restrictive contracts, would not talk even off the record. "I don"t know
what kind of legal problems they would cause me if I talked," said one
former employee in 1988. She said she did not "want to say anything that
would cause them to bring a case against me," that she didn't "want
letters from their lawyers because I don't want them to hurt me," and
that she didn't "even want my name used because they'd come after me."
One person in 1989 commented only, "I have a good job now. I don't want
anyone [at the Globe-Times] to do anything to huff me." When asked what
could hurt her, she replied only, they have their ways." In reality,
their fears were probably unfounded since the Globe-Times management had
much more important issues to deal with than trying to keep former
employees quiet.

I found it especially interesting that about a half-dozen
Globe-Times journalists, who were usually vigorous in trying to convince
their own sources to comment upon stories being worked on for the
Globe-Times, refused to comment about the Globe-Times. One said she
"wouldn't rat,' on the company that paid her, yet she expected,
sometimes even demanded, employees from other companies to talk with her
when she wanted information for a story. A couple of journalists who
had never met the author even tried spreading rumors and disinformation
among other employees, perhaps hoping to keep them from talking. But
employees did talk, most of them pleased that someone was interested in
the truth about what was happening to them and their newspaper.

The Globe-Times management, especially during its final three years,
feared publication of its problems would irreparably harm the
newspaper, damaging its struggle for survival. Senior management had
imposed a carefully worded "gag" order in August 1989, then again August
12, 1991; there were rumors throughout the plant that Management would
take severe action against persons talking with anyone outside the
company. Two former employees, who had left the company voluntarily,
report that a supervisor politely explained to them, after they had left
the company, that it would not be in their "best interest' to
"participate" in any study of the Globe-Times by an "outside person."

Just as those in the media have the right to criticize others, so
does the public have the right to investigate, analyze, and criticize
the media. Journalists often tell the public, "if you don't want to see
it in print, don't do it." Sometimes, though, members of the news media
have trouble taking the heat when they are the ones under investigation.

Nevertheless, the Globe-Times corporate management did cooperate as
much as it thought appropriate. In addition to David McCollum, John F.
Bitzer Jr., Abarta Corporation president; publisher Nancy Adams Taylor;
and editor James R. Laubach Jr.1 discussed a number of issues, including
the restructuring of the newspaper. The assistance and insight of
attorneys Larry Levin and Jon Vegosin of Chicago, consulting attorneys
for the Globe-Times and legal counsel for large corporations and other
newspapers, was especially helpful in opening lines of communication and
securing needed information Assisting them was Celeste Jegen. Their
assistance cannot be fully documented.

The assistance of several labor specialists is also acknowledged
with deep appreciation. Providing insight were Dr. Frank Annunziato,
professor of labor studies at the University of Connecticut and Rosemary
R. Brasch, former lecturer in labor studies at Pennsylvania State
University.